zlacker

>>hliyan+(OP)
Time to ban all adverts everywhere. I'm not the only one who is fed up with ads.

I don't see ads, thanks to ad blocking tech in browsers and smartphones. Any time that happens to fail and I get to endure an ad, I am amazed that regular people without ad blocking tech can endure this onslaught.

The time to negotiate a "middle ground" is long past. Let's not even entertain that idea.

An acceptable middle ground could have been designated areas for ads, which you have to seek out to see them. Think of the Yellow Pages.

Ad companies need to be reined in. They cannot control themselves. They are lobbying against all limits and controls. The only solution is to eradicate ads entirely and to make sure that anyone who gets that idea will never get it again.

>>cracki+dh
Ads are speech. Replace all mention of "ads" in your post with "speech I don't like" and see how it reads.

>>a2dam+sN
Ads are speech until they are intrusive, until they track you across websites, until they violate your privacy.

It's one thing to have a block of HTML dedicated to ads, and another to have YOUR shit running on my machine WITHOUT my consent.

>>Partia+VO
It is with your consent.

You continue to visit these websites.

If you don’t want their code running on your machine, simply don’t send a GET request.

>>tt24+JT
If I buy a book, I'm not required to read any part of it. I'm allowed to control what I read.

>>ericjm+dX
You’re allowed to use an adblocker.

>>tt24+jX
You might be safe as long as the ad is on a website but stupid laws that shouldn't exist like the DMCA can make it illegal to block ads when you have to circumvent a technological measure in order to block those ads. Blocking ads and the steps needed to block them might also violate some product's EULA which could result in civil judgements against you.

>>autoex+r01
> DMCA can make it illegal to block ads when you have to circumvent a technological measure in order to block those ads. Blocking ads and the steps needed to block them might also violate some product's EULA which could result in civil judgements against you.

Your issue there is with the government. No disagreement from me in this regard :)

>>tt24+Z21
The problem of course isn't the fact that government and laws exist. Most of us are happy that we have government and laws. The alternative is very ugly and doesn't lend itself to progress or prosperity.

The problem is that our government was allowed to be bribed/corrupted by corporate interests to pass bad laws designed to protect their profits and enforce control by taking freedom from consumers. The true villain here isn't government, government was just the tool they leveraged against us.

It's supposed to be our job to insist that our government work for the interests of "we the people" and we failed. The solution now is to get rid of corrupt politicians and the bad laws they passed and replace them with good ones that preserve our freedoms and don't put corporate interest ahead of the people's.

Sadly, our entire political system has been carefully refined over centuries to make it harder and harder to keep our government accountable to the people but hopefully it's not too late to change that situation within the democratic framework we've created.

>>autoex+m71
If the rule you followed lead you to this, of what use was the rule?

“We just need to do it right this time and surely it’ll work!”

Maybe the whole idea of restricting adults from engaging in consensual transactions isn’t the greatest?